Ask The Gold Trumpet

[Gold Trumpet]

Chasing Amy
The best part of this movie is how organic the material is. Through out all of Kevin Smith's movies, there is so much  slang of looking down at women and calling other guys "gay" or "faggot" for being dumb. It feels like Smith is more opportunistic in using this behavior for other movies than anything else. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back the most extreme example. In Chasing Amy he uses it to good purposes in understanding the motives of these men when one of them is dealing with a love for a lesbian who makes him confront these things about himself. We are immensed in this world of frat house lingo that makes these people for, some reason, use a class of people as a scapegoat for all their problems. For me, Chasing Amy is the only good and admirabe film Smith has done. Some of the drama in the film is a little too melodramatic for the natural air Smith is able to give, (car scene when raining hindered on it) but for the most part, Smith accomplishes something of good quality. Even though I like this film, I still refuse to buy the dvd. I just am too annoyed with the gimmickery that runs through Smith's career to pay even $15 for the very nice Criterion dvd of it. At best, I'll say I like it.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT..its been awhile.....

who in your opinion is the most over-rated actor/actress..

Yes, it has been a while. Feel free to keep asking me questions. This is the best part of the board for me because it allows me to analyze more.

By far the most overrated actor for me is Edward Norton. While he is being promoted as "actor of his generation", his work to me usually just does the job of passability. From movie to movie, I don't see him within his characters at all. From role to role, I continually see the actor Edward Norton. The raise of voice when he gets mad always sounds the same. His manner of speech is always the same. I see him change looks, but his work seems to rest on the same tone of acting. And then his roles really vary little. They always put him as the "tough guy", even when it is a sensitve portrayal as in the 25th Hour or even for American History X. Even with Red Dragon, he is tough because he is playing the "heroic cop". There is a streak across his career as if he has to be someone, that he has to be on that respect level of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino. Even on this mundane goal, he often doesn't accomplish the goal because his presence is not that of a "tough guy". I did believe him in American History X, but all the other roles his very skinny frame intrudes and his Middle America look and boyish presence are always there. But yet, he continues to push forward in being seen in a certain kind of reputation. Last summer, I was watching a tape of the AFI Robert De Niro tribute and Ed Norton came out and I remember (but could be wrong) that when Norton was introduced, he was even mentioned as maybe this generation's great actor. You gotta arrange for that kind of introduction. Norton wants this hype but his acting is tired and presence not there.

[godardian]

Chasing Amy
The best part of this movie is how organic the material is. Through out all of Kevin Smith's movies, there is so much of the slang of looking down at women and calling other guys "gay" or "faggot" for being dumb. Smith feels like he is opportunistic in using this behavior for other movies, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back the most extreme example, but he uses it to good purposes in understanding the motives of these men when one of them is dealing with a love for a lesbian who makes him confront these things about himself. We are immensed in this world of frat house lingo that makes these people for some reason use a class of people as a scapegoat for all their problems. For me, Chasing Amy is the only good and admirabe film Smith has done. Some of the drama in the film is a little too melodramatic for the natural air Smith is able to give, (car scene when raining hindered on it) but for the most part, Smith accomplishes something of good quality. Even though I like this film, I still refuse to buy the dvd. I just am too annoyed with the gimmickery that runs through Smith's career to pay even $15 for the very nice Criterion dvd of it. At best, I'll say I like it.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I enjoy Chasing Amy- it's an amateurish yet heartfelt little romantic comedy with some real charm to it. When I've seen Kevin Smith's other leaden, stunted, charmless movies, I've had to reconcile the fact that he made the endearing, earthy Chasing Amy with the apparent fact that it was some kind of fluke.

[SHAFTR]

Chasing Amy
The best part of this movie is how organic the material is. Through out all of Kevin Smith's movies, there is so much of the slang of looking down at women and calling other guys "gay" or "faggot" for being dumb. Smith feels like he is opportunistic in using this behavior for other movies, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back the most extreme example, but he uses it to good purposes in understanding the motives of these men when one of them is dealing with a love for a lesbian who makes him confront these things about himself. We are immensed in this world of frat house lingo that makes these people for some reason use a class of people as a scapegoat for all their problems. For me, Chasing Amy is the only good and admirabe film Smith has done. Some of the drama in the film is a little too melodramatic for the natural air Smith is able to give, (car scene when raining hindered on it) but for the most part, Smith accomplishes something of good quality. Even though I like this film, I still refuse to buy the dvd. I just am too annoyed with the gimmickery that runs through Smith's career to pay even $15 for the very nice Criterion dvd of it. At best, I'll say I like it.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I enjoy Chasing Amy- it's an amateurish yet heartfelt little romantic comedy with some real charm to it. When I've seen Kevin Smith's other leaden, stunted, charmless movies, I've had to reconcile the fact that he made the endearing, earthy Chasing Amy with the apparent fact that it was some kind of fluke.

I can't help but come to the rescue of my favorite filmmaker.  For some reason, that I'm not sure of, Chasing Amy is one of the few films that has ever moved me.  Originally it was the love/relationship aspect, but what has really stuck is the Banky/Holden relationship.  Affleck & Lee just clicked.  I know there are a few parts that bother me, and I have heard Smith say he wish weren't there (the cunt line before Allysa sings and the "another one bites the dust" line with the lesbians).  Besides that, the criticisms of the slang are valid, but I think they should be criticisms on the character that is saying it, not the writer.  In that respect, it works.  I probably have seen this film more times than any other (ex. Wizard of Oz) and it still comes off as fresh and the jokes funny.  

I think there is still a charm in Clerks, and even Mallrats.  J&SB Strike Back only worked for me the first time I saw it (being a Smith fanboy).  Dogma made me really think but now I think of it as a mess, that needed either a) more work b) a trimming or c) a more visual director.  I still enjoy the film though for it's moments.  I can't help but feel that his films are very genuine and that when he tackles a particular subject he actually cares about the characters and the subject itself, or at the very least is familiar with it.  I don't like his films as much as I used to (but I still love them), but he will always remain my favorite filmmaker b/c unlike most directors, he cares about his fans.

I actually do understand why people might not like Smith films, they are very love/hate.  I'm just on the love side hoping more people will join me.

[Ravi]

I think there is still a charm in Clerks, and even Mallrats.  J&SB Strike Back only worked for me the first time I saw it (being a Smith fanboy).  Dogma made me really think but now I think of it as a mess, that needed either a) more work b) a trimming or c) a more visual director.

I still like Clerks and Chasing Amy, but I hated Mallrats when I saw it.  It had very little of the cleverness I saw in Clerks.  JSBSB was stupid, silly fun, and on that level I enjoyed it.  I liked Dogma when I first saw it, but I don't think it holds up that well on repeated viewings.  It's way too talky, and like you say, could have used more visually interesting direction.

[SHAFTR]

I think there is still a charm in Clerks, and even Mallrats.  J&SB Strike Back only worked for me the first time I saw it (being a Smith fanboy).  Dogma made me really think but now I think of it as a mess, that needed either a) more work b) a trimming or c) a more visual director.

I still like Clerks and Chasing Amy, but I hated Mallrats when I saw it.  It had very little of the cleverness I saw in Clerks.  JSBSB was stupid, silly fun, and on that level I enjoyed it.  I liked Dogma when I first saw it, but I don't think it holds up that well on repeated viewings.  It's way too talky, and like you say, could have used more visually interesting direction.

Mallrats takes a few viewings.

[SHAFTR]

I am attempting to not let this thread die like SHAFTR Says... did.

1.)  My Life to Live
2.)  Shadows
3.)  From Dusk Til Dawn

[Banky]

i think all of KS movies are brilliant minus J&SBSB

[Kev Hoffman]

i think all of KS movies are brilliant minus J&SBSB

I wouldn't go as far as saying they're brilliant.  They're just sporadic flashes of brilliance, mixed in a web of disapointing elements.

[Banky]

mixed in a web of disapointing elements.

elaborate

[Kev Hoffman]

mixed in a web of disapointing elements.

elaborate

I can't say much that hasn't been spoken already.  But I'll fill in some things off the top of my head that strike me as disapointing:

Kevin's lack of visual style (which works in some instances, Chasing Amy namely, and doesn't in others, like Mallrats and Dogma)

Mallrats is a fine example of my theory.  Though it sparkles with incredible wit, it falls flat in any sort of development.  The story goes absolutely nowhere I haven't seen a thousand times before.

Dogma upon repeated viewings is filled with plot holes, and sub-par dialogue that leaves me just not caring about the movie.   I don't care what anyone says, but the dialogue in Dogma sounds like forced out garbage.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

[Sanjuro]

1. Pierrot le fou VS. Band of Outsiders
2. Discreet Charm of the Borgousie(Sp)
3. Heaven and Earth

[Gold Trumpet]

I apologize for not commenting on the films asked any sooner, but I've been restricted on time drastically as of late. I own My Life to Live and was planning to rewatch it again for a planned essay I am writing, so I'll get to that. That's the only film from Shaftr's list I've even see. From Sanjuro, I've seen Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and Band Of Outsiders. I can rent Heaven and Earth, so maybe I'll do that. Expect something next week and don't feel obliged at all to keep this thread going. I can keep discussions going in other threads. I've just been busy as hell lately.

[Gold Trumpet]

When I first saw My Life to Live, I thought I missed something and wasn't able to appreciate the quality film everyone else talked about. I saw it recently again and realized there was little to appreciate. The film is quite bad.

Every single scene rolls out in emptiness. In the matter of little happening, vast amount of drama is talked about or symbolized, but no strength in the story to suggest any of that at all. The point of the story is that Karina is forced into prostitution because she faces poverty and while being a prostitute, is tragically killed because of the corruption of others around her. Its just the film is so thin in observation and so persistent in just following Karina through every banality that logic of drama obviously comes up: How was her situation so bad that she had to go into prostitution full time? It said she had to pay someone back 2000 francs, but made that and more on her first job, so why continue if she already has a job? What was the major problem between the dueling gangs that it led to her being shot because of it? In defense, every single answer will likely be a simple one, because there is little elaborate on with the story. It is almost non existent even though trying to be tragic.

Then there is the filmmaking, they key to everyone's admiration for this film. If the filmmaking is suppose to be large in symbolism because it is so purposely unconvential and positioned in each scene for a purpose, but what symbolism can it really bring when the drama is nearly non existent? The film is actually quite lame because it tries to be dramatic without anything to really help it. In analyzing the first scene with the quarrel between the lovers and the camera to each other's back in different shots, I guessed two reasons for such a motive: Could their backs to the camera symbolize their backs to each other? Sometimes,  when people talk to each other in a film, they sometimes speak at the camera which is invisible to them. Also, could Godard be forcing us to observe this situation without the benefit of just judging from the prettiness or ugliness of face and take the words for their words? Who knows. Its talk for the Godard elite.

Continuing with Godard, I must say Band Of Outsiders is the enjoyable film by him I've seen. Its problems aren't as present in this film as his others. For most of the film, a delicate realism of two petty criminals influence over a school girl is exciting to watch and interesting because it is so natural and not connected to any strings. Moments like the impromptu dance and 1 minute of silence only benefits to this nice air. For all of this, the film is nicely without pretension. Then to speak on the intrusion, Godard the critic appears and parts of the movie is narrated like a crime story sizing up up everyone but the point is, with this naturalism, these criminals aren't much for criminals and their sloppiness of robbing a house goes against expectations of the genre because they are real people. Well, just showing them as real people already does that without the narration being needed. The narration of the film is the worst part because it talks about the feelings of each character! The best part of the movie is that you don't really know how Karina is feeling toward these men she knows are betraying her but also fascinating her. There's a nice mystery in that. But, most of the film is quite engaging and exciting and almost feels like a good counterpoint to a film like Knife in the Water in simplicity, but Godard interferes in the end.

I'll do Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoise very soon. Just wanted to make a Godard post. Haven't seen the other ones mentioned, sadly. I'm just glad to have time to reply to this thread.

[godardian]

I guessed two reasons for such a motive: Could their backs to the camera symbolize their backs to each other? Sometimes,  when people talk to each other in a film, they sometimes speak at the camera which is invisible to them. Also, could Godard be forcing us to observe this situation without the benefit of just judging from the prettiness or ugliness of face and take the words for their words? Who knows. Its talk for the Godard elite.

Well, if that's not a convenient brushing-off, sidestepping the very relevant question of to exactly what extent common issues of "plot" and "character" could apply to Godard's work, I don't know what is!

I think your approach to Godard is completely off the mark, GT. Godard was never out to tell a story that made dramatic sense, not ever. You can blame him for this and disparage him for it and completely disagree with him, but that's the standard he set. His standard is to "film criticism," or "the film as film criticism." Each film becomes about something quite other than the "story." His films have little regard for story, that's true, but infinite regard for how the story is told. And that's not self-indulgent Tarantino-ness, either; he is very serious about uncovering the conventional mechanisms of narrative and revealing to the audience something very important about its relationship to what's on screen.

Now, you can argue with Godard's standards and goals and artistic purposes all you want; in fact, at a certain point I do that, as well. But by its own standards for its own professed intent, My Life to Live is probably the best, most pure example of what Godard does and is "about." It is not only a successful film on its own terms; it is also one of the few really unique achievements in cinema history.

I think what you say about My Life to Live reveals expectations of film as a medium that a) were very well understood by Godard and b) entirely rejected by him. Now, you have every right to hold your own expectations of a film, but from your attack on this film above, it seems to me you were looking for anything but what was actually there- as if you were unable to see the new way Godard proposed to go about things because you insist upon the old way. It doesn't seem there was much effort on your part to understand or see why he was doing what he was doing, just that he wasn't doing it the way a conventional film is expected to.

Susan Sontag says it better than I ever could hope to (of course!) in her essay devoted to the film. Some quotations:

"'The chicken has an inside and an outside,' wrote the little girl. 'Remove the outside and you find the inside. Remove the inside, and you find the soul.'

The story of the chicken is the first of many 'texts' in the film which establish what Godard wants to say. For the story of the chicken, of course, is the story of Nana. In My Life to Live, we witness the stripping down of Nana. The film opens with Nana having divested herself of her outside: her old identity. Her new identity, within a few episodes, is  to be that of a prostitute. But Godard's interest is in neither the sociology nor the psychology of prostitution. He takes up prostitution as the most radical metaphor for the separating out of the elements of a life."

...and then at the end of the essay (it really is required reading for film lovers, in my opinion):

"My Life to Live seems to me to be a perfect film. That is, it sets out to do something that is both noble and intricate, and wholly succeeds in doing it. Godard is perhaps the only director today who is interested in 'philosophical films' and possesses an intelligence and discretion equal to the task. Godard is the first director fully to grasp the fact that, in order to deal seriously with ideas, one must create a new film language for expressinng them- if the ideas are to have any suppleness and complexity."